(a) To select a fair and impartial jury in a criminal jury trial, the trial judge shall conduct an initial examination of prospective jurors. At the first practical opportunity prior to voir dire, the trial judge shall consider the form and subject matter of voir dire questions. Before voir dire by the trial judge, the parties may submit questions to the trial judge. The trial judge may include additional questions requested by the parties as the trial judge deems proper.
§ 223.Voir dire in criminal jury trial
Title 3. Persons Specially Invested With Powers of a Judicial Nature · Chapter 1. Trial Jury Selection and Management Act · Enacted 2017 · no amendments on record · Last verified July 28, 2026
In one sentenceSection 223 mirrors § 222.5’s structure for criminal jury trials, giving the judge an initial examination followed by direct counsel questioning, defining a narrower “improper question,” and requiring voir dire to occur, where practicable, in the presence of the other jurors, including in death penalty cases.
Full Text of § 223
(1) Upon completion of the trial judge’s initial examination, counsel for each party shall have the right to examine, by oral and direct questioning, any of the prospective jurors. The scope of the examination conducted by counsel shall be within reasonable limits prescribed by the trial judge in the judge’s sound discretion subject to the provisions of this chapter. During any examination conducted by counsel for the parties, the trial judge shall permit liberal and probing examination calculated to discover bias or prejudice with regard to the circumstances of the particular case or the parties before the court. The fact that a topic has been included in the trial judge’s examination shall not preclude appropriate followup questioning in the same area by counsel. The trial judge should permit counsel to conduct voir dire examination without requiring prior submission of the questions unless a particular counsel engages in improper questioning.
(2) The trial judge shall not impose specific unreasonable or arbitrary time limits or establish an inflexible time limit policy for voir dire. As voir dire proceeds, the trial judge shall permit supplemental time for questioning based on individual responses or conduct of jurors that may evince attitudes inconsistent with suitability to serve as a fair and impartial juror in the particular case.
(3) For purposes of this section, an “improper question” is any question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition the prospective jurors to a particular result or indoctrinate the jury.
(c) In exercising the judge’s sound discretion, the trial judge shall consider all of the following:
(1) The amount of time requested by trial counsel.
(2) Any unique or complex legal or factual elements in the case.
(3) The length of the trial.
(4) The number of parties.
(5) The number of witnesses.
(d) Voir dire of any prospective jurors shall, where practicable, take place in the presence of the other jurors in all criminal cases, including death penalty cases. Examination of prospective jurors shall be conducted only in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause.
(e) The trial judge shall, in his or her sound discretion, consider reasonable written questionnaires when requested by counsel. If a questionnaire is utilized, the parties shall be given reasonable time to evaluate the responses to the questionnaires before oral questioning commences.
(f) To help facilitate the jury selection process, at the earliest practical time, the trial judge in a criminal trial shall provide the parties with the list of prospective jurors in the order in which they will be called.
(g) The trial judge’s exercise of discretion in the manner in which voir dire is conducted, including any limitation on the time that will be allowed for direct questioning of prospective jurors by counsel and any determination that a question is not in aid of the exercise of challenges for cause, is not cause for a conviction to be reversed, unless the exercise of that discretion results in a miscarriage of justice, as specified in Section 13 of Article VI of the California Constitution.
Plain-English Summary
Section 223 governs voir dire in criminal jury trials, tracking much of § 222.5’s civil framework but with criminal-specific features. As in civil cases, the trial judge conducts an initial examination, after which counsel for each party may examine prospective jurors directly, within reasonable limits the judge sets, and the judge must permit liberal, probing questioning aimed at discovering bias or prejudice tied to the case or the parties. The judge similarly cannot impose unreasonable or arbitrary time limits, and must allow supplemental questioning time as individual responses reveal potential unsuitability to serve.
Section 223’s definition of an “improper question” is narrower than the civil version: a question that, as its dominant purpose, attempts to precondition jurors to a particular result or indoctrinate the jury, without the civil definition’s additional reference to questioning about the pleadings or applicable law. Voir dire in a criminal case must, where practicable, take place in the presence of the other jurors, including in death penalty cases, and examination is conducted only in aid of exercising challenges for cause.
Section 223 closes with a deferential appellate standard: the trial judge’s exercise of discretion in conducting voir dire, including time limits and rulings on whether a question aids a cause challenge, is not grounds for reversing a conviction unless it results in a miscarriage of justice under Article VI, Section 13 of the California Constitution.
Frequently Asked Questions
How is voir dire in a criminal case different from a civil case under California law?
Section 223’s definition of an “improper question” omits § 222.5’s reference to questioning about the pleadings or applicable law, and § 223 requires voir dire, where practicable, to occur in the presence of the other jurors, including in death penalty cases.
Can a criminal defendant appeal based on how voir dire was conducted?
Only in limited circumstances. Section 223 makes the trial judge’s discretion over voir dire reviewable for reversal only where it results in a miscarriage of justice.
Must criminal voir dire happen in front of the other jurors?
Where practicable, yes, including in death penalty cases, per § 223(d).
Is criminal voir dire limited to challenges for cause?
Section 223(d) states that examination of prospective jurors is conducted only in aid of exercising challenges for cause.
Amendment History
Added Stats 2017 ch 302 § 2 (AB 1541), effective January 1, 2018.
Source & verification. Section text is reproduced verbatim from
the Deering's California Codes Annotated / vLex. Enacted by the California Legislature.
Last verified July 28, 2026.
· Official source
Also known as: voir dire criminal case californiacalifornia criminal jury selection questioningimproper question criminal voir dire californiadeath penalty jury selection california voir dire